Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Eklavya, I am posting a comment here from a british reader of a british newspaper about muslim behaviors as minorities and majorities.

MT45 commented on I'm a British Muslim man of the same age as the London and Manchester terrorists – and I know why we turned out so different | The IndependentHere's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007). Note that Muslim percentages in the West have increased dramatically since 2007.

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).

63 incidents, 28 deaths over three years in a country of 125 crores and they want special attention from the PM and make it into a cause célèbre.

Sudeepj, how many deaths in your view justifies the PM's attention?

On a per capita basis this is much lower than the number of hate-crime deaths recorded annually in the US. And we are not even taking into account the fact that Muslims are 14% in India as opposed to 1% in the US....the killings are reprehensible no doubt- but this should help to provide some perspective

The country has not cut such a pathetic figure on the global stage since Suez

WRITING to his wife in May 1942, Evelyn Waugh recounted a true story of military derring-do. A British commando unit offered to blow up an old tree-stump on Lord Glasgow’s estate, promising him that they could dynamite the tree so that it “falls on a sixpence”. After a boozy lunch they all went down to witness the explosion. But instead of falling on a sixpence the tree-stump rose 50 feet in the air, taking with it half an acre of soil and a beloved plantation of young trees. A tearful Lord Glasgow fled to his castle only to discover that every pane of glass had been shattered. He then ran to his lavatory to hide his emotions, but when he pulled the plug out of his washbasin “the entire ceiling, loosened by the explosion, fell on his head.”

A year on from the Brexit referendum Britain feels like Lord Glasgow’s castle. The most visible damage has been done to its domestic politics. With the Conservative Party in turmoil Jeremy Corbyn, Labour’s hard-left leader, talks about being prime minister in six months. But just as serious is the blow to Britain’s global standing, which is lower than it has been at any time since the Suez crisis in 1956, when America crushed Anthony Eden’s attempt to reassert British power in Egypt.

For decades Britain’s foreign policy has rested on three pillars: the United States, the European Union and the emerging world. Winston Churchill, the son of a British aristocrat and an American heiress, coined the phrase “special relationship” to describe the ties of blood and language that bind Britain to America. As a former imperial power, Britain had close ties with dozens of African and Asian countries. With one of Europe’s largest economies, it had a big say in Europe’s future, often acting as a counter-balance to the Franco-German axis.

British diplomats can be starry-eyed about this. The Suez crisis demonstrated that America was happy to dump the “special relationship” whenever it clashed with its national interest. The British have always been second-division players in Europe. Yet the three pillars have not only stood the test of time. They have also reinforced each other. Britain’s membership of the EU bolstered its influence in America just as its close relations with America increased its clout in the EU. The EU magnified Britain’s global power, bringing with it trade deals with 53 other countries.

Britain’s decision to leave will obviously diminish its influence in Europe. Even if it can negotiate favourable access to the single market it will no longer be part of the EU’s decision-making apparatus. Its weakness has already been exposed: David Davis, Britain’s chief Brexit negotiator, has so far done little but make concessions. So has its isolation. Theresa May is now routinely asked to leave meetings when EU business is discussed.

Britain is leaving the EU at a time when its relations with the United States are perilous. Donald Trump is a volatile figure whose lodestar is “America first”. He is extraordinarily divisive, meaning that the closer Britain gets to Mr Trump the more it alienates anti-Trumpists. A survey of 37 countries by the Pew Research Centre found that just 22% of people thought that Mr Trump would “do the right thing” in international affairs. Barack Obama scored 64% in the final year of his presidency.

What of the third pillar? The Brexiteers’ strongest card is that they are globalists. Untethered from Europe’s rotting corpse, they argue, Britain will be free to engage with the emerging world. Yet there is no evidence that British companies were held back from this by EU membership. The EU hasn’t prevented Germany’s Mittelstand companies from becoming global powerhouses. The reverse might be the case: emerging countries are interested above all in access to the EU’s market of 500m people.

The self-reinforcing logic of the old system will go into reverse over the next few years, whoever sits in Downing Street. Henry Kissinger told a conference in London this week that Brexit provides a chance to renew the transatlantic relationship. But he was forgetting the question he supposedly asked when he ran American foreign policy: “Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?” America will spend more time on the phone with a convivial power inside the EU than outside (Mr Trump is to visit France on Bastille Day, whereas his proposed trip to Britain is up in the air). Emerging markets will be more interested in dealing with great power blocks than with a small country with idiosyncratic rules and volatile politics. This could happen even faster if Britain elects Jeremy Corbyn, who has made a speciality of criticising the world’s leading powers while cuddling up to its basket cases.

From virtuous to vicious circle

Since the 1980s Britain and America have been the world’s leading apostles of the ideology of the moment, neoliberalism. British consultants travelled around Europe and the former Soviet Union offering lessons on privatisation. The Swedes introduced internal markets into their welfare state. The Germans tried to adopt “shareholder capitalism”. But neoliberalism took a beating with the 2008 financial crisis. Britain and America have since been humbled by a populist tide that produced Brexit on one side of the Atlantic and Mr Trump on the other. Brexiteers argued that a Leave vote would produce a “Brexit spring” as the ancien régime tottered and the euro plunged. Instead, the EU is in its best shape in years, with a young reformer installed in the Élysée Palace and the Franco-German axis solid. Across the continent the press talks of Britain as the “sick man of Europe”.

In the aftermath of the Suez crisis, Dean Acheson lamented that Britain had lost an empire and failed to find a role. In the subsequent decades, post-imperial Britain in fact found several roles: as a fulcrum between Europe and America; as an old hand at globalisation in a re-globalising world; and as a leading exponent of neoliberalism. Thanks to the combination of the financial crisis and Brexit, it has lost all of these functions in one great rush. The windows have shattered and the ceiling has fallen in.

With fewer officers and a heightened risk of terrorism, some think that more police should carry weapons

WITHIN eight minutes of three terrorists beginning their murderous rampage at London Bridge in June, armed police had shot them dead. But not before the criminals had killed eight people and injured many more. Officers were already at the scene but, unarmed, they had been unable to stop them. In March Keith Palmer, an unarmed police constable, was killed trying to stop Khalid Masood’s attack at Westminster. These recent “marauding” terrorist incidents have provoked debate in Britain about whether more of its police should carry guns.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council will consider the question at its next meeting in July. Among the options to be discussed are increasing the number of armed response vehicles and handing more officers Tasers or giving guns to those at key locations, though the council does not plan to make policy proposals.

Britain is unusual in how lightly it arms its police. It is one of only five members of the OECD, a group of 35 mainly rich countries, that does not routinely give officers guns. Because of its particular history, police in Northern Ireland are commonly armed. But in England and Wales only around 5% of the 123,000 officers carry guns. The number of firearms operations declined by 36% between 2009 and 2016, possibly as a result of wider use of non-lethal weapons such as Tasers by the police.

Armed officers open fire rarely. In the eight years to March 2016 police discharged their guns during just 40 incidents. Since 1990, 67 people have been killed in police shootings in England and Wales. In America, where guns are widespread among both the police and the general population, almost 1,000 people were killed by the police last year alone. Britain spends more time training its armed officers not to fire their weapons than to shoot, says Peter Neyroud, a former chief constable.

Could arming the police more widely make both them and the public safer? The number of officers in England and Wales has fallen by 18% since 2010. With fewer coppers, giving those that remain guns would be literally another weapon in their arsenal in responding to crime.

But arming officers can also make them more likely to take risks and engage in dangerous situations, according to a study by Ross Hendy, a researcher at the University of Cambridge and policeman in New Zealand, where police are generally unarmed. Guns enhance officers’ sense of safety but not necessarily their actual safety. In Norway police generally keep guns in their cars (although those in big cities are temporarily carrying weapons, in response to the threat of terrorism) but must ask for permission to use them. That means a delay of a few minutes before any shots are fired. Such delays allow officers to consider how best to approach the situation and to call for back up. On average, seven officers were present at each incident involving firearms in Norway, compared with only three in Sweden, where police routinely carry guns.

A widespread roll-out of firearms in Britain is unlikely in the near future. Armed officers volunteer for the role and are highly trained. Their number has fallen in recent years and recruiting more is proving hard. Training large numbers of coppers to use guns would be expensive, and police budgets have been cut. And police have mixed feelings about carrying guns; about a tenth of officers in London say they would rather quit their job than do so.

Despite changes to the law, social workers still seem to want to colour-match children to parents

SANDEEP and Reena Mander endured 16 rounds of in vitro fertilisation over seven years before they decided to adopt a child. The couple, articulate businesspeople in their 30s, might seem like dream adopters. But not, it seems, to their local council’s adoption agency, Adopt Berkshire. The Manders claim it warned them off even applying to adopt, because the only available children were white, and they, of Indian Sikh heritage, are not.To prevent loving and capable prospective parents from adopting because of their skin colour seems antithetical to Britain’s increasingly post-racial society. The Manders are suing the council, which has not commented. But the colour-coding to which they appear to have been subjected was until recently standard practice in England. Matching children with parents of the same hue was considered necessary to provide a sense of identity; it was the policy of most councils that run adoption services from at least the early 1990s until 2014.

The policy was cruelly damaging. Because adopters are disproportionately likely to be white, it hurt non-white children. Black children languished in care for a year longer than whites and Asians before being adopted. It was not until the Children and Families Act, passed by David Cameron’s Tory-Lib Dem coalition in 2014, that the requirement to consider race when placing children for adoption was removed. Amid the wreckage of Mr Cameron’s legacy, this law, which was part of a number of reforms that also gave adopters the same right to parental leave as other new parents, stands out. It strengthened a law from 2002 which said that race and culture should be “relevant” but not “overriding” factors when placing children for adoption.

But the Manders’ case shows how long it can take for laws to change behaviour. Some of today’s injustices are caused by an effort to redress older wrongs: oversensitivity to race is a response to past racism; a broader reluctance to separate children irrevocably from their biological parents in favour of adoptive ones reflects remorse over the routine way in which unmarried mothers were once deprived of their newborns. Yet both policies have meant that too many children remain in foster homes rather than being adopted, despite strong evidence in favour of the latter course (people who grew up in care constitute less than 1% of the population, but nearly a quarter of those in prison).

Fighting yesterday’s battles is no good to the Manders, nor to the child whom they were desperate to look after. Foiled at home, like many frustrated couples in the bureaucratic West they are now trying to adopt abroad.

The hatred against hindus is very ingrained, this hinduphobia is what earns them money. A house-slave cannot function without it. It is what opens their doors. The house-slave after whipping the slaves for pleasing his master - comes at the night and asks the slaves to understand why the whipping was good for the slaves. This approval-seeker has to analyse the whipping in that fashion - otherwise how will he ever say that he was a "good" house slave.

They will not comment on the murders of hindus in karnataka and kerala -because it will not earn them money.

Virupaksha wrote:How many would like to bet that R3 would become the new Amartya Sen, the go to person when NYTimes or any such gora rag wants to get the "house nigg*r" to make comments on India/tolerance/RSS

there is a saying from where I come from "when asked who is the thief, the pumpkin thief rised his shoulders". I wantedly steered clear of naming anyone .

There have been atleast 5 posts before me, which dealt with other topics. Just think why you had to respond to mine with the rhetoric using the fallacious argument of appeal to authority and laughable attempts at using blatantly political awards as crutches.

The post seems to have hit close ...

The house-slave after whipping the slaves for pleasing his master - comes at the night and asks the slaves to understand why the whipping was good for the slaves.

PS1: I am not going to provide succour to the conscience of one. How one lives with it, whether one doubles down and blindly side with the master, hey is upto them.

eklavya wrote:Sudeepj, how many deaths in your view justifies the PM's attention?

On a per capita basis this is much lower than the number of hate-crime deaths recorded annually in the US. And we are not even taking into account the fact that Muslims are 14% in India as opposed to 1% in the US....the killings are reprehensible no doubt- but this should help to provide some perspective

This isn't about numbers only, also perception. To give you an example of the shoe being on the other foot

The idea that you will be targeted randomly because of your appearance is terrifying. Even small numbers are enough to raise fear levels. In some/almost/all ? cases reported in cow protection incidents, there have been mobs, not individuals or a few people with guns.

KrishnaK wrote: Majoritarian excess is usually considered more dangerous.

Yes. And there is no 'cow protector' majority. how is this a majoritarian excess?

Are you suggesting every Hindu will become a cow protector and kill everybody eating beef?

Such behaviour by small numbers of the majority can induce fear. The fear is that criminal/political elements will get emboldened and use this grievance to settle scores or raise their profile and the majority will shrug it off as an anomaly or justify it as righteous or as we're seeing here rail against it as a conspiracy. We all know how long it takes to mete out justice in India, a fact that has very little to do with religion or politics.

The fear exists. The rest of the world including the sickular president, the nationalist PM, the desh drohi media and hindu hating foreign press acknowledge it. But BRF has always been ahead of the curve, so who knows.

The idea that you will be targeted randomly because of your appearance is terrifying. Even small numbers are enough to raise fear levels. In some/almost/all ? cases reported in cow protection incidents, there have been mobs, not individuals or a few people with guns.

There is no ""shoe on the other foot"" here. If you check my posts on the Indo-American thread, I have consistently held that Indian Americans are over-reacting to the hate crimes recorded against themselves based on the numbers so far. Of course - all hate crime is reprehensible and the govt and law need to act with firmness. But to call this an example of 'White terrorism' or 'Christian terror' is as foolish as terming the beef-lynchings as 'Hindu terrow' or 'cow-terrorism'. What this kind of language does is to normalize and legitimize the Islamic terror that is the real threat to global civilization today.

The idea that you will be targeted randomly because of your appearance is terrifying. Even small numbers are enough to raise fear levels. In some/almost/all ? cases reported in cow protection incidents, there have been mobs, not individuals or a few people with guns.

There is no ""shoe on the other foot"" here. If you check my posts on the Indo-American thread, I have consistently held that Indian Americans are over-reacting to the hate crimes recorded against themselves based on the numbers so far. Of course - all hate crime is reprehensible and the govt and law need to act with firmness. But to call this an example of 'White terrorism' or 'Christian terror' is as foolish as terming the beef-lynchings as 'Hindu terrow' or 'cow-terrorism'. What this kind of language does is to normalize and legitimize the Islamic terror that is the real threat to global civilization today.

I don't believe anyone's comparing the cow issue with say ISIS. Neither am I claiming that you're being hypocritical. The gaurakshak issue is being treated more or less in the same fashion as similar incidents in the US/UK. My last post on this topic.

I am visiting BRF after a gap and don't know which thread to post it. Some the threads on Partition or General UK policy would be more apt, but I can't seem to hind them. So this is where I post it for now.

while retreating from India, the British destroyed vast numbers of aircraft and defence supplies that legally belonged to India. Leading defence analyst Bharat Karnad informs that the Walchandnagar Aircraft Company (the precursor to Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd) was contracted to build the B-24 Liberator bombers in Bangalore. Most of these aircraft were shipped back to Britain after the war.

But a significant number, which could have constituted an embryonic bomber component of the IAF, was deemed “surplus to the need” and deliberately destroyed by the departing British at the Maintenance Command in Kanpur by hoisting these aircraft, one by one, up by their tails to a considerable height and dropping them nose down on the hard ground.

Is this true? Can anyone give more details on this?

It looks like the author, Rakesh Krishnan Simha, has done his homework and is aligned with the BRF style of interpreting British history. He should be on BRF, if he isn't already.

surinder wrote:for work in south africa or for recruitment for WW one?

Correction, he received Kaisar-i-Hind, the highest civilian honour reserved for Indians under British Empire.

Its most famous recipient is Mohandas Gandhi, who was awarded the Kaisar-i-Hind in 1915 by The Lord Hardinge of Penshurst for his contribution to ambulance services in South Africa.

His award recommendation described him as "The well- known South African leader, who has now returned to India, where he is regarded almost as a saint."

He did Award wapsi in 1920 to protest Jallianwala Bagh

Edit: Note his medal was awarded this for his services in organizing volunteers for Ambulance Corps. He was later awarded the Queen's South Africa Medal for volunteering in Ambulance Corps during Boer War in 1906

canada has boundless natural resources like fresh water, 3rd largest oil reserves, tar sands, fisheries , mines and what not. their total population is indeed small and subject to increasing middle east/TSPian migration though. same for australia except that it lacks the $1tr guaranteed trade with friendly neighbour usa.

what UK/Aus/Oz prove is that islam is a complete and utter failure as a political and economic system and should confine itself to religious matters only. the middle class educated of islamic nations are moving by any means possible to richer countries to seek a better and safer future. however islam from day1 was a religious+political+social construct and hence cannot just reform itself. this leaves the fate of its 2 billion adherents on a limb.

But of late, there are areas in sydney where , apparently, it's not easy for a non Muslim to rent a shop and a walk through these streets will find Hijabs-e-plenty and Arabic signage flourishes. There are some shops with no English signs, a good sign of who they have or want as their clientele.

Australia has/had (need to check) generous family benefits for every child born and you you can connect the dots for the rest.

The Lord Mayor was born in Northfield, Birmingham in 1944 and attended St Lawrence Church of England and Kings Norton Grammar schools. Her grandfathers worked at Cadbury and GKN Nettlefold and her father worked for the Austin Motor Company.

^^There is also in general too much focus on pet peeves and religious biases and not enough on the threats to India (which, irrespective of other Muslims, remains Pakistanis especially Mirpuris and Khalistanis) in the UK. Which is unfortunate as it generates too much noise that drowns out things that are important for our interests.

With that said, the demographics, driven by the drastic difference in fertility rates, is a ticking time bomb.

Singha wrote:canada has boundless natural resources like fresh water, 3rd largest oil reserves, tar sands, fisheries , mines and what not. their total population is indeed small and subject to increasing middle east/TSPian migration though. same for australia except that it lacks the $1tr guaranteed trade with friendly neighbour usa.

what UK/Aus/Oz prove is that islam is a complete and utter failure as a political and economic system and should confine itself to religious matters only. the middle class educated of islamic nations are moving by any means possible to richer countries to seek a better and safer future. however islam from day1 was a religious+political+social construct and hence cannot just reform itself. this leaves the fate of its 2 billion adherents on a limb.

The Oz display of solidarity with muslims is a political stunt. The convicts are not soft on muzzies when it comes to action. Much of it is not reported in the media. I am not sure if the aussies would like to trade their lifestyle for halal. When push comes to shove the ex-motor cycle gangs of sydney politicians know how to shoot. UK is being watched closely by aussies, besides bomb making is not easy in the tightly regulated environment. Social benefits have been reduced after the lebanese and ME muslims started abusing it with multiple children and fake divorces. Oz tv shows dont shy away from shaming islam and theres definitely a christian angle to this. The world mission operates from sydney so the pressure is maintained. mosque constructions are highly regulated except in some muslim areas. by the time terror hits Oz shores they would have learnt a lesson from the brits and canadians hopefully

India has been speaking with greater candour in recent weeks about obstacles in its relationship with Britain, highlighting how efforts by the British government to take forward the relationship, particularly via a post-Brexit trade deal, could struggle.

Just a week after Indian High Commissioner Y.K. Sinha warned that bilateral relations would struggle to progress without recognition from Britain that the centre of terrorism lay to India’s West, the High Commission here has expressed its concerns about plans for a rally to be held in the city of Birmingham to commemorate the first death anniversary of Burhan Wani, the Hizbul Mujahideen commander, on July 8.

‘Note verbale’

The office of the Deputy High Commissioner Dinesh Patnaik sent a “note verbale” on the matter to the British Foreign Office on Monday. “We are concerned that in Britain where such terrorist incidents are taking place, their authorities would allow for the celebration of the death of a terrorist,” said Mr. Patnaik on Tuesday.

The move, seen as an unusually candid one by India, highlights the country’s increasing willingness to highlight issues of tension between the two countries, as debate in Britain focuses almost solely on the untapped potential to enhance the trade deal between the two countries.

Reflects frustration

Gareth Price of Chatham House said that India’s increased frankness likely reflected frustration about the fact that its message that bilateral relations went well beyond the economic realm to issues such as security and terrorism were not being heeded in Britain, despite efforts by India over the past decades to make its views plain.

“It is almost like two different conversations are happening in parallel.”

“These are things that India has been saying quite explicitly but no one seems to have listened to it on the British side. It hasn’t had the recognition India wants. We are back where we were in the 1980s where the issue of Sikh militants was one of the biggest impediments to stronger relations.”

Speaking at an event on post-Brexit opportunities between India and Britain last week, Mr. Sinha told delegates that there was an “undue focus” on the free trade agreement with India, and with the few FTAs India had signed globally, expecting one in the immediate aftermath of Brexit might be “expecting too much.”

Other issues on terrorism, security and beyond also had to be confronted, he said, highlighting the issue of terrorism.

“We’ve been facing terrorist attacks for decades…you were sceptical in the past about terrorist attacks we faced … all I can say is we must confront this.”

He also raised the issue of Vijay Mallya, stating that Britain had become a “haven for fugitives from justice” as well as Britain’s willingness to tolerate “anti-India activity.”

He said the argument that Britain was an open society that had to allow such activity to take place didn’t work, as India was a “robust democracy” but didn’t interfere in internal affairs of friends and allies.

Wani, 22, was killed with two other militants in Anantnag district on July 8 last year, triggering protests across the Kashmir Valley, following a mission that security agencies described as the “biggest ever success” in recent times.

The Indian Government flagged its concerns with the British Government, which led to the Birmingham City Council cancelling the event.

"We took a booking for a peaceful rally highlighting the human rights abuse in Kashmir. However, we are now aware of concerns raised about the promotional leaflet and, having assessed the material, have not given permission for the use of Victoria Square," a Birmingham Council spokesman was quoted, as saying by the Birmingham Mail.

It was reported that Deputy High Commissioner of India to the UK Dinesh Patnaik lodged a formal complaint with the Foreign and commonwealth Office (FCO), wherein he said that "allowing anti-India elements to flourish here in the name of democracy will not do".

The Indian Government flagged its concerns with the British Government, which led to the Birmingham City Council cancelling the event.

"We took a booking for a peaceful rally highlighting the human rights abuse in Kashmir. However, we are now aware of concerns raised about the promotional leaflet and, having assessed the material, have not given permission for the use of Victoria Square," a Birmingham Council spokesman was quoted, as saying by the Birmingham Mail.

It was reported that Deputy High Commissioner of India to the UK Dinesh Patnaik lodged a formal complaint with the Foreign and commonwealth Office (FCO), wherein he said that "allowing anti-India elements to flourish here in the name of democracy will not do".

India should review trade ties accordingly. Post brexit is a good time to stick it to the colonial lords and masters who still think of us as a subservient part of their empire and constantly, contemptuously talk down to us expecting us to do their bidding due to some imagined "commonwealth connection" where we are supposed to be grateful for our own enslavement and loot by the brits.

This myth has been perpetuated by gungadins like MMS and the congi NGO gangs

In an interview with the BBC Sir John was then asked if Mr Blair was as truthful with him and the public as he should have been during the seven-year inquiry.Ruling Blair has immunity from prosecution over Iraq war under review He replied: “Can I slightly reword that to say I think any prime minister taking a country into war has got to be straight with the nation and carry it, so far as possible, with him or her.“I don't believe that was the case in the Iraq instance.”

India should review trade ties accordingly. Post brexit is a good time to stick it to the colonial lords and masters who still think of us as a subservient part of their empire and constantly, contemptuously talk down to us expecting us to do their bidding due to some imagined "commonwealth connection" where we are supposed to be grateful for our own enslavement and loot by the brits.

This myth has been perpetuated by gungadins like MMS and the congi NGO gangs